tv [untitled] March 5, 2013 4:30pm-5:00pm PST
over a ten-year project that brought together people with from every aspect of our community, the builders, developers and insurancers, academics and we had ed lee and brown at various points and we were very active in this. our first job was to assess the vunerbility of the buildings in san francisco, what buildings were likely to be most at risk. and as we brought that very diverse group of people together and everybody realized that we have a big problem before us, where we had a very desperate diverse group of people who were at each other's throats. everybody came together and said that we have a collective problem and collectively that we have to solve. >> and as things moved on, in the end, when the final caps project was done, and the final
reports were presented to you, in 2010, the public advisory community there was unanimous support for the program. this program, the south story ordinance actually was brought to you first four years ago today. you wonder why it has taken many of us wonder that as well. it was actually four years ago today that the report hear today hear tomorrow was brought forth to you. there is caps has evolved into esop the earthquake implementation program which is a 40, excuse me, 30-year program. the soft story ordinance is the first step in that. it is the low hanging fruit. this is where we get the
biggest bang for the buck. this is going to be the easyist and cheapest of the problems to solve and we will look forward to your support in the other efforts on the esup program as well. but i strongly encourage your support on this. thank you commissioners >> thank you, thank you for all of your service, so far. >> next speak ner >> good morning, it is char on short with the housing rights committee. this ordinance, yeah, it needed to happen, yesterday. and that is many yesterdays ago. and so, we as this issue about this issue and this ordinance has gained more attention in the media, we have heard from tenants who have learned, wow, my building is on this list, i really worried. i feel unsafe. and so we have definitely heard that from the tenant community that they want to see this happen and they want to see it
happen now. but, i of course, do have to bring to your attention that the other flip side of what we hear from the tenant community individual tenants is but this can't happen, you know, at the expense of especially low income renters in this, i know, housing market where it is so difficult to find affordable rentals even, it sounded like from what i know, that there could be as much as $100 a month in a pass-through, because this, well it is the responsibility of the landlord to fund the retrofitting. they can pass it through legally 100 percent to the tenants. and so, we are definitely going to be working on helping patrick and the folks involved in this ordinance. and working with the board of supervisors to figure out, you know if there is a way to do this more fairly so that there is not even a possibility that essentially tenants could pay
100 percent of the cost. through the passers that the rent board would allow and so, that is sort of say, we highly support this measure and we don't want to obstruct or even kind of let it go another day. yet, we do have faith and a belief that we can do this in a more fair way and that it is a very important principle and i think material reality that tenants actually can't afford such high pass throughs, and the last thing that we want to see, i think that any of us want to see is that in an effort to make these buildings safer, people are actually displaced from those homes who are living there. so, we will be chiming in and you know, meeting among ourselves to figure out and propose some good solutions, you know, the last thing that we want to do is simply oppose the measure. we do very much support it and we think that in the spirit of
this, you know, bringing all of these voices together to support this, that we can do that. thank you. >> thank you, miss short. >> and we look forward to seeing you at the table. and when we are discussing all of these issues. next speaker, thank you. >> good evening x commissioners, my name is chris poland and i am a structural engineer, and the member of the spur board of drekers and chairman of the spur initiative. i am here to speak on behalf of spur in support of this mandatory seismic program. spur established and published for what san francisco needs to do to prepare for the next great earthquake, it provides the next activities and retrofitting the buildings and protects the occupants and supports the recovery, we need our neighborhoods to be secure. and able to support the shelter needs of the people who will
leave there so they can be fully restored in 30 to 60 days and this is important for the city's recovery. for the people who will go to back to home they need to be in their homes and the kids need to be in their schools and the neighborhoods need to be restored and the local businesses need to be operating. unfortunately as you know, half of our residential units in the cities don't meet this goal. as you know, san francisco has a unique style of multifamily housing and it is vulnerable. the earthquake damage and collapse. they represent the single units in the city, they are three stories or more in height. they house nearly 60,000 people and 2,000 businesses. those are all small businesses, and these are the ones that are subject to the retrofit program. if they are not fixed this is the important part, the okay you pants will need immediate shelter and temporary housing for two years and the small businesses will fail and we know that from the earthquake, when the neighborhood goes out of business the small
businesses fail. san francisco does not have room for construction and the people that are most affected will need to move to other cities and never return to san francisco. we have the opportunity to dramatically change that out come. this mandatory retrofit program is well conceived and has a broad community and technical support for the engineers and provides the soft story buildings to make them safe and able to support shelter in place. the cost is very affordable from the structural engineer standpoint this is really a good deal for fixing buildings and does not require a relocation of the tenants or the businesses. while this provides obvious benefits to the buildings and owners and occupants the biggest gain is to the city. and i urge you personally and on behalf of the spur to support this legislation, thank you. thank you no your letter of support. >> next speaker. the first time that have you been to the mic i am sure.
>> good morning, commissioners, and etunova, the commissioner along with the resident of san francisco for 40 years. i strongly support and urge action on this to support the mandatory retrofit. the category of great risk at hand is the earthquake, but more importantly is the risk of not taking action. timely action, because what we have here is a land mine. what we will have when that land mine goes off is going to be great damage. the damage to both social, cultural and economic, the categories of our neighborhoods are the most vulnerable within this spector of disaster and it is not just what basically will effect the neighborhoods, but also the economic recovery. because, the ability for people to go back to work is basically
the ability to live where they live and if not, in their neighborhoods, and if not, the neighborhood support services, the cafes the restaurants. those that they basically within the walking distance of their neighborhoods would continue to support. i urge action on this, the action is never too late if it occurs yesterday, but the em pending earthquake is coming at this moment, who knows, maybe the next hour. all of that we can't foretell. but what we could foretell is action. and our action will basically take the responsible role to take the safety, health and welfare of our residents, our citizens of san francisco, and the this is a great city. and please, help to make it even a greater city by having the economic social and cultural recovery that is so important along with this
mandatory retrofit. the category of costs? we will make that. we will make that happen, but the category of moving forward with a policy that says, we need to do this, we have to do this, and it is never going to be ever too late if it happened now. because we can't take that risk because it is not tomorrow, it could be now, and at this disaster could happen, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning, ned feny and i am the chair of the co-advisory committee. i wanted to make a few comments, obviously we support this, we sent you a letter to that effect the subcommittee as well. i wanted to mention that the reason that it is on the fast track is because it was a collaborative effort everybody was looked at this. and they have all had a voice and so this is when the public policy works and frankly that is the corn fields critd.
he put the group together and caps and he has been diligent and i will mention his name and i also want to mention that this is a work in progress and this is new engineering here. it took a while, even the engineers had to get on board because it is fuzzy engineering you might say. they are used to working on a building and doing the right thing for the entire building. we are asking them to do almost the right thing on the worst part of the building. so it is a little new territory for them. so, just wanted to tell you that the code advisory committee is helping to define that in the coming months there is a screening form and code legislation and femap87 is in the ordinance and there is a lot of discussion in the back channels in what does that mean? when, engineer comes in, what does ha mean? we will help to define that in the coming months, i want to
assure that that is a process. two other people that i want to mention is steve harris and david bonowitz those are two names that you should remember. steve helped to get this issue forward about how engineers could wrap their heads around this and david helps to put together the previous document that led to p807. this is new territory and, we are cutting really incredible new ground here. and frankly we are going to be an example for a lot of areas in the state and the country. thanks for your support. >> thank you, mr. finean and thank you for your service and we are lucky to have you on the committee and all of your hard work. >> appreciate it. >> thank you. >> next speaker? thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, aim's george obelian long time property owner and native san franciscoan and i want to pledge my support for this effort. it is something that makes me proud to live in this city.
san francisco is a special place where great ideas and solutions have a chance to come forth and work and this is one of them. when we set out the policy clearly, we allow the building owners in the city to act. and that is all that they are waiting to do. everyone knows how much real estate has aappreciated in this city and the owner wanted to do the responsible thing and protect not only their investment but also the city. so, thanks for your support in this. and i hope to see it go through, quickly as possible. >> thank you for all of your work. >> >> next speaker. >> i seeing none, madam secretary? >> there is no further public comment, is there a motion to... >> yeah, commissioner walker
wants to. >> i just want to make a motion to lend the commission's support of this ordinance. >> okay. >> i will second that. >> okay and just before we take a vote. just a quick comment. you know, somebody who was in the 89 earthquake and you fast forward to 2013 and i am honored and privileged to be a part of some sort of a solution for the future. but, i had the privilege of sitting in with the mayor and hear him talk and he talked very passionately about this. he actually made the analogy where he was dispatched by the mayor to go to new orleans and he came away with a very, very strong resolution if he was anything that he could do to make sure that the city is prepared for its, you know, difficult day when it comes. he was going to do everything that he can and it is great to see the commissioners here aboard. and i think that commissioner
walker, pointed out very important, when we are talking about it earlier, as commissioners we have strong ties into the different communities. we need to get people's support here. not everybody is going to be happy with every aspect of this but we have to do the right thing for the city and as san franciscoan and so we look forward to working with you pat and micca i want to acknowledge you down there who is hidden in the back and the number two man there to do everything, and he needs support to get this to the necessary time frame that you need it done and the thanks to corn field for all of his work on this and everybody involved. so with that i would second commissioner walker's motion. >> all the count. >> we have the motion and a second. a roll call vote? >> president mccarthy? >> aye. >> mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar.
>> yes. >> and commissioner walker. >> yes. >> and the motion carries. >> our next item. >> item 8, director's report. >> item 8 a update on dbi's finances. >> >> department of building inspection. this is going to be a very, very, quick presentation. >> yeah, sure. >> and so, as you know we continued to have revenues come in greater than what we had this time last physical year to the tune of 22 percent.
our issued permits have continued to come in at about nine percent more than the previous year and the valuation continues to grow in the terms of the issued permits by 25 percent. our revenues we got in the first enstallment of our apartment hotel license revenues with the tax in december, and they are what we expected which is essentially we get in the majority in the first in december and the rest in april. and i just like to know we currently have and we are only 58 percent of the year through the year. >> thank you. >>
>> in terms of expenses, we continue to under spend in our salaries and fringes. because we are still trying to staff up. i would like to mention that as of yesterday, we have 13 more individuals, or 11 more individuals than we had last friday, we have hired, we have hired nine individuals the majority of which eight of those nine are clerks and their sprinkled through the department. they are in training right now. so, as you know with training mode, any of us remember starting a new job it takes a little while to get the hang of
it. we promoted two people from being temporary to being permanent in the clerk positions and we have hired two prop f people who have come back. one for housing inspection and one for the permit bureau. so, we are slowly staffing up. we are still working as rosemary mentioned. we have issued the job announcements for the housing inspecters. we are having those out for eight, i am sorry, ten business days so people have ample opportunity to be able to apply. we have right now today, we are having some interviews for selecting a list for electrical
inspecters and march we are going to have interviews for the building inspecters and so we are moving on, we just have a lot of interviews a lot of selection process going on at the same time which makes it a little difficult for staff and we are trying to get as much help as we can from human resources. they also as i said before, continue to help us on the exam process for the rest of the positions that we are trying to hire which are some it positions and some senior electrical inspecters and our permit technicians. as we expected the non-personal services are under non-expending because we get a lot of the bills at the end of the year.
and then, in terms of the other expenditures, you know we continue with our services of other department and we have gotten the billings for the larger work orders so this is the... the city attorney services have come in less than i expected so i am going to discuss with them on this because we have referred many cases to them and i am not sure whether those are being picked up. and then, our program expenses, you know, are so small that it would not make any sense to spend a lot of time on those. >> the other thing that i would like to mention is that we are heading into the budget process and it is being submitted on friday and as i mentioned last time, it is kind of at that point there is a lot of
discussions between, within the mayor's office and the controllers office and if when, or when i am able to let you know in a broad group like this, about any of the developments i will let you know. we are working on our waiver for our pacto which is the healthy climate ordinance, healthy climate transportation ordinance. we are or have spent time working and sitting down with the department of environment to really clearly communicate and have them hopefully clearly understand what is necessary for us to do business. we are looking in as was suggested on to having find some extra or actually in terms of our replacements of cars, include, some of the electric cars but there real big
impediment right now is the charging stations. so we continue to take the recommendations of the commission and commissioner melgar to try to get more to the clean air passed the high roads and passed the cngs but i think that the departments are having those kinds of problems of getting the charging stations up. it would be nice if we could buy a parking lot that we could put a bunch of charging stations and we kind of joked around with that with the controllers office, yng that is going to happen. but absent that we are trying to work on what could be done. the other thing is i have told you the controller's office is working with us in coming up with some recommendations for reserved policies and areas that we may want to look at using some of our fund balance.
and it would be great if there was some way that i could talk to them about the discussion that is going to occur as you develop a code change to be able to do some of the lower interest loans, so i am going to try to see if there is a way that i can communicate with that without jumping forward past your process of coming up with policy and taking it to the board of supervisors. i think that anything that comes from the controller's office has a lot of weight in terms of future financial policies. any exacting any change is not really exacting, but encouraging any changes to occur with the mayor's office and our office and the controller's office and so that i think there is a lot of possibility of what we will come out of the work that they
are doing in terms of the reserves. >> any questions? >> any questions for the deputy? >> no? >> oh,, yeah, commissioner mar. >> just a quick question on it. >> if the city pretty much up in terms of their testing in terms of for the electrical inspecters or do we have a list or we waiting for them to do the tests? >> so this is the majority of the tests that we are doing now, all have to do with position-based testing, so we have to work with them and one of the... with the dhr and one of the problems that we have had is that we have not filled the positions in omany years we did not have a good job descriptions and we did not have good specifications. but, we are the electrical inspectors and we are currently working on and the electrical inspectors is what we were
having interviews today to establish a list and then we will go through to actually do some you know do the final selection process. so we are, everything takes a lot longer than i ever would have expected it to be. but as you all know when the department of human resources came in and explained the testing process many of us just closed over because it seems very complicated and very and hopefully, bullet-proof, but, so, the answer is, that we have a list, we don't, we have actually we don't have a list for housing inspectors that is what we are getting right now. we are working on getting through the electrical. we don't have a list but that is what we are working on getting a list. so we don't have to wait for the broad city classification testing like we had to with the clerks.
what we are doing is now is really getting our desires, wants, specification and that sort of thing and working with the dhr and getting that. >> thank you, deputy director. >> >> item 8 b, update on proposed legislation in? >> good morning, bill strong with legislative and public affairs. you have heard about the most significant piece of legislation with the mandatory retrofit. nobody has got a clear idea on exactly how long the process may take. it is on the land use, 30-day calendar, i expect it actually to come forward relatively soon. because one of those
co-sponsors is supervisor weiner and he is the chair of the land use committee. so it could in fact go through quite quickly in terms of board of supervisor passage and as he was spelling out there is this the mayor signs this legislation with 60-day notification period and a one-year period following that so there is almost an 18-month window after the mayor signs the legislation to give the people enough time to be notified and get the craoening done on that initial stuff. so, i would say that the train has left the station but it is going to take a little time and there are a lot of details to yet to be worked out including two more administrative bulletins that will spell out the procedure and so it is very clear to what property owners will have to do in order to comply and meet the building performance standards. >> as was mentioned earlier also, the board did unanimously
approve the permit extension legislation that we introduced and the mayor has signed that and i expect that to take legal effect on march 8th. it was the public advisory committee and the big customers say that we need more time in the economy for the recovery to keep going. and i think that legislation will be helpful that way. as was mentioned earlier, planning, staff, any way has recommended doubling the entitlement period from three years to 6 years, but the planning commission has yet to actually act on that. when they put that to them in 2009, the planning commission turned that down. so, i don't know yet, whether or not they are going to also extend the planning entitlement period as we have done but this will help our customers definitely in terms of the